SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (748758)9/8/2006 6:02:03 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
Where’s Osama been Hidin’?

The Culling By D. Allan Kerr
Culling Archives
seacoastonline.com


Where is the outrage? Where is the sense of frustration and humiliation?

Most important, where is the accountability?

The fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is drawing near and it seems the prevailing atmosphere in this country is one of nostalgia and reflection.

People are discussing the impact that terrifying day had on them and on the world, but I find myself, still, mired in the same question – why is Osama bin Laden a free man?

More than 1,800 days after that f*****g day, Osama bin Laden is still alive.

It’s a concept I can’t begin to comprehend.

Why isn’t this the lead story of every major news show this week? Why isn’t George W. Bush hammered with this question every time he steps before a microphone? Why isn’t the White House press corps ripping into this failure like a pack of wild dingoes, the way it went after the story of Dick Cheney mistaking his hunting buddy for a quail?

I wonder sometimes if I’m the only person pissed off about this. I feel like the villainous Will Ferrell character in “Zoolander,” the only person who realizes the expressions Ben Stiller uses in his famous runway model “looks” are actually all the same. “Am I on crazy pills??” Ferrell’s character screams at one point.

People loved it when Bush vowed to get bin Laden “dead or alive” shortly after the September attacks five years ago. The former prep school cheerleader was trying to invoke the rough-and-tumble pioneer justice of the Old West, but he apparently forgot about having to walk the walk after talking the talk. If Bush was trying to cast himself as a tenacious John Wayne-type lawman he only wound up embarrassing himself and disappointing the rest of us.

Back in 2004 —– an election year — Lt. Gen. David Barno said bin Laden would likely be brought to justice by year’s end, according to The Associated Press. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

The Bush camp would like us all to think bin Laden and his cronies are huddled in a cave somewhere, bedraggled and gnawing on the bones of large rats. Instead, five years later, bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, continue to taunt us through the release of videos and audiotapes.

Just this past weekend, al-Zawahri appeared in a 48-minute video featuring a 28-year-old American follower named Adam Yehiye Gadahn. The American, wearing a white turban and robes, exhorted American soldiers to convert to Islam as well. He spoke from an immaculate white-walled room, with a computer monitor, a desk and a lineup of religious books behind him.

Al-Zawahri is so terrified at the prospect of capture he is believed to have ventured to a nearby village in July to become either engaged or married to a teenage girl, according to media reports. Before this past weekend, the terrorist appeared in a July 27 video urging Muslims to join in the fight to destroy Israel.

Bin Laden also dispatched a message in July, an audiotape backing the new leader of al-Qaida’s Iraq faction after we blew up Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

In the meantime, the number of Americans killed in the war on terror has now surpassed the number killed during the 9/11 attacks. According to CNN, 2,973 people were murdered that day by bin Laden’s henchmen. Last week, the military casualty figures from Afghanistan and Iraq, including accidents and illness, exceeded that total.

In other words, while bin Laden still lives, the war he ignited has enabled him to double the body count he tallied five years ago. He’s become, in dark corners of the world, a folk hero who outsmarted the mightiest nation in the history of our planet. Nicely played, Mr. Bush.

Just this Tuesday, the president himself cited bin Laden’s past threats in a speech designed to shore up support for his own stumbling war efforts. “Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them,” Bush said. “The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?”

Truth is, I don’t think that’s the question at all. I think the question is, “Why isn’t this evil man already dead?”

Five years later, with the entire might of the United States military and technology more advanced than many of us can imagine at our disposal, why are we even talking about this clown? If bin Laden is on a par with Hitler, why do we only have 20,000 troops in Afghanistan — where he is believed to be hiding in the border area with Pakistan — when a former Pakistani army general has maintained that as many as 200,000 troops would be necessary to seal that border?

Why isn’t bin Laden’s bloody, bearded head sitting on a spike outside ground zero?

That, Mr. Bush, is the question. It’s a question I hope you hear every day for the rest of your presidency — or until we get the son of a bitch.

D. Allan Kerr still likes to wonder how things would have turned out if John McCain had been elected president six years ago. Kerr may be reached at the_culling@hotmail.com.

Seacoast Online is owned and operated by Seacoast Newspapers. Copyright © 2006 Seacoast Online.



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (748758)9/8/2006 6:08:09 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
Terrorism, not Nazism

Published Friday, September 8, 2006
idsnews.com

Wadell Hamer is a junior majoring in political science.


Say what you will about the members of the Bush administration, but they are wordsmiths.
That's a title that neither myself nor most people would normally bestow on someone such as "W," but if you look at the administration's history, I think that it's a fair word to use to describe them. The administration has used the power of words to make Democrats out to be homosexual lovin', baby killin', un-American softies on national security.

With words, they have crafted this war on terror into not just a war against terrorism but into the greatest threat to democracy and freedom the world perhaps has ever seen.
Bush's latest gem with words has been to compare this war to World War II and particularly comparing Osama Bin Laden to a man so evil that it seems like the history channel has dedicated the entire network to him.

This man I speak of is Adolf Hitler. And I just can't fall for this latest masterpiece of words.

I will be the first to admit that Osama Bin Laden is no Mr. Rogers. The man is evil by any stretch of the imagination. He has dreams and plans o bringing the Islamic world and America to its knees with the use of reckless violence. He wants to rule the Middle East with an Islamic "iron fist." For his actions on Sept. 11 -- let alone his plans for the world -- the man should be caught and brought to justice. But is he the next Hitler? No!

A few things put Hitler over Bin Laden:

• Hitler was the leader of a country. After 1934 Hitler basically had Germany in the palm of his hands. With sick thoughts like his, you can do a lot of damage. Bin Laden never has and never will have that kind of access to a powerful nation. Some would say he was practically the leader of Afghastian, but there is no comparison between Afghastian and Germany.

• Hitler had an Army. Before World War II, the German army was considered one of the best in the world. Bin Laden's army is, well, a guerilla army at best. It's very small and has little supplies in comparison to Hitler's mighty forces. This will severely damage his dream of taking over the world.

• Hitler was a lot more organized. He had to be. At one point, he controlled almost all of mainland Europe, excluding Russia. Bin Laden seems to be going about initiating terrorist attacks without a logical plan. True, he might have plans that we don't know about, but what he has done so far annoys me more than scares me.

Bin Laden reminds me of that little kid from elementary school who responds to everything with violence and more violence. After a while you become more annoyed by his actions instead of fearing him, and you know a good butt-kicking would do him a world of good. Despite all of Bush's mishaps, hopefully we can continue along the path to doing that. But to say bin Laden is the next Hitler is an exaggeration.



To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (748758)9/8/2006 6:15:16 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
‘Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir?’

Posted on Sep 6, 2006

Keith Olbermann has been on a roll lately, contesting the administration’s “recent Nazi kick” with a series of essays. This time the “Countdown” host went after the man himself, saying: “Mr. Bush, you are accomplishing in part what Osama Bin Laden and others seek—a fearful American populace, easily manipulated, and willing to throw away any measure of restraint, any loyalty to our own ideals and freedoms, for the comforting illusion of safety. It thus becomes necessary to remind the president that his administration’s recent Nazi ‘kick’ is an awful and a cynical thing.”

Video & Transcript

Transcript (from Crooks and Liars):

It is to our deep national shame—and ultimately it will be to the President’s deep personal regret—that he has followed his Secretary of Defense down the path of trying to tie those loyal Americans who disagree with his policies—or even question their effectiveness or execution—to the Nazis of the past, and the al Qaeda of the present.

Today, in the same subtle terms in which Mr. Bush and his colleagues muddied the clear line separating Iraq and 9/11 — without ever actually saying so—the President quoted a purported Osama Bin Laden letter that spoke of launching, “a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government.”

Make no mistake here—the intent of that is to get us to confuse the psychotic scheming of an international terrorist, with that familiar bogeyman of the right, the “media.”

The President and the Vice President and others have often attacked freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent, and freedom of the press.

Now, Mr. Bush has signaled that his unparalleled and unprincipled attack on reporting has a new and venomous side angle:

The attempt to link, by the simple expediency of one word—“media”—the honest, patriotic, and indeed vital questions and questioning from American reporters, with the evil of Al Qaeda propaganda.

That linkage is more than just indefensible. It is un-American.

Mr. Bush and his colleagues have led us before to such waters.

We will not drink again.

And the President’s re-writing and sanitizing of history, so it fits the expediencies of domestic politics, is just as false, and just as scurrilous.

“In the 1920’s a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews,” President Bush said today, “the world ignored Hitler’s words, and paid a terrible price.”

Whatever the true nature of al Qaeda and other international terrorist threats, to ceaselessly compare them to the Nazi State of Germany serves only to embolden them.

More over, Mr. Bush, you are accomplishing in part what Osama Bin Laden and others seek—a fearful American populace, easily manipulated, and willing to throw away any measure of restraint, any loyalty to our own ideals and freedoms, for the comforting illusion of safety.

It thus becomes necessary to remind the President that his administration’s recent Nazi “kick” is an awful and cynical thing.

And it becomes necessary to reach back into our history, for yet another quote, from yet another time and to ask it of Mr. Bush:

“Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

truthdig.com

=====================================================
And, some interesting comments on the article, appended at the bottom:

-----------------------------------------------------

Comment #22254 by Tim Sassoon on 9/07 at 10:18 am

"The “media” will not face the truth-that the Muslims holy books, the Habib and the Koran both demand the killing of all who oppose their way of life and their doctrines.”

Wow! So all this time, ever since the Crusades, they’ve just been sharpening their knives, befriending us in the workplace, making us use their numerals and their silly “al-Jibra”, buy their oil, plant palm trees in our yards and eat dates, just waiting for the moment to strike, and slit our throats while we sleep.

My orthodox sephardic Jewish family lived among the Arabs in Baghdad for a thousand years (until 1948, of course). And my grandfather helped, as an aide to St. John Philby, to set up both the Transjordan and Saudi Arabia.

I’d prefer that instead of trying to kill them all (and let God sort ‘em out), we instead tried to wean them off salafist tendencies. Otherwise, one or another of them is bound to visit Greeley, Colorado again. My (maternal - descended from a long line of Danish marauders, who once threatened Anglo-Saxon order) grandmother always said, you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

TS

---------------------------------------------------

Comment #22219 by Hilding Lindquist on 9/07 at 5:51 am

For everyone who wants to read how a REAL conservative looks at the Bushies latest PR blitz of fear
, I would suggest Paul Muslshine’s column in the New Jersey (Newark) Star-Ledger today:

“The anti-fascist oxymorons”
By Paul Mulshine
Thursday, September 07, 2006

nj.com ase/columns-0/115760886083820.xml&coll=1

Quoting from it:

It’s a little silly to talk about “victory” in Iraq when the government Bush put into power is allied with the fundamentalists who took our Iranian embassy in 1979 and truck-bombed our Kuwaiti embassy in 1983.

It’s impossible to imagine those old-time conservatives of the pre- World War II era screwing things up on this level. Taft and company had no appetite for foreign adventures.

The neocons, on the other hand, retain the internationalist outlook of the Marxism that so many of them claim to have abandoned in their youth.